Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know a lot of liberal black males who also love the idea of someone defending their lives against attackers.
Yup. Many of us, from both sides of the political aisle, support someone's right to defend themselves.
The problem here is that we only have Zimmerman's claim that he was on the defensive and was attacked by Martin. We don't actually KNOW who was and who wasn't the defender. Nobody actually saw who attacked whom, how, or know precisely why. Our ONLY knowledge of the start of the fight comes from 1) Zimmerman's claims, and 2) what Jeantel overheard on the phone. We don't know, for instance, that it wasn't Zimmerman who started the physical altercation by trying to "detain" Martin in some way until LEOs arrived, with Martin defending himself against Zimmerman. If Zimmerman had done this, he'd certainly know better than to tell anyone he did, given the fatal outcome and his knowledge of self-defense laws.
In either scenario --Zimmerman as defender against Martin or Martin as defender against Zimmerman -- the remaining part of the fight (only partially and sketchily witnessed) could have occurred and Martin could have ended up shot dead, and Zimmerman could have ended up hurt.
I respect people's right to analyze the limited available evidence and come to a personal conclusion that Martin was the aggressor and not defender, but at least admit that it's a subjective, inferred conclusion and not objectively known to be a fact in any way firmly established by some independent means with solid evidence independent of the claims of the trial's defendant, who some find credible and some don't. It also bears noting that the jury didn't need to determine who was truly the aggressor to acquit. They could acquit based simply on the fact that they couldn't tell what happened beyond any reasonable doubt.
I know this is the kind of stuff some want to believe, based on what Z put out there to be absorbed into the minds of those he could convince.
*First of all, Z had started the whole thing, but following in his car initially. He DID chase, but then, lost track of him when speaking to the dispatcher. (That is when you claim he "got away"?)
*After Z had been asked if he "was following him", and was told "we don't need you to do that", he did not head back to his truck, since he had asked, "Could you just have them call me when they (police) get here and I will tell them where I'm at"- (clearly, so he could keep following). Some minutes transpired here, if he had returned to his truck, no more would have happened, leaving it to the police. (You should not buy the "T came out of bushes", or alternately, "the shadows", ridiculousness).
*Who ever said that T "made it home", only to leave safety? Another assumption.
His friend Rachel said that. Read her testimony.
What is your theory on what he was doing for those four minutes?
It is laughable that anyone thinks that pudgy
Zimmie caught up to a young athletic TM.
What is your theory on what he was doing for those four minutes?
It is laughable that anyone thinks that pudgy
Zimmie caught up to a young athletic TM.
No, she didn't say it, and you admitted a few days ago she didn't when we had this discussion before. Why are you once again claiming that she said he'd 'made it home'? We already agreed her words established that Martin had reached some location near to the home, with how near and precisely where he was not said or established by what she said. If you're going to now reverse yourself and claim she really said he'd 'made it home' and left again, then please provide a quote of her saying this. It serves little point to go round and round on this particular claim when the witness' words are available for you to cite to prove what you allege. If you can't cite her saying he made it home, then please stop making the claim she said it.
Yup. Many of us, from both sides of the political aisle, support someone's right to defend themselves.
The problem here is that we only have Zimmerman's claim that he was on the defensive and was attacked by Martin. We don't actually KNOW who was and who wasn't the defender. Nobody actually saw who attacked whom, how, or know precisely why. Our ONLY knowledge of the start of the fight comes from 1) Zimmerman's claims, and 2) what Jeantel overheard on the phone. We don't know, for instance, that it wasn't Zimmerman who started the physical altercation by trying to "detain" Martin in some way until LEOs arrived, with Martin defending himself against Zimmerman. If Zimmerman had done this, he'd certainly know better than to tell anyone he did, given the fatal outcome and his knowledge of self-defense laws.
In either scenario --Zimmerman as defender against Martin or Martin as defender against Zimmerman -- the remaining part of the fight (only partially and sketchily witnessed) could have occurred and Martin could have ended up shot dead, and Zimmerman could have ended up hurt.
I respect people's right to analyze the limited available evidence and come to a personal conclusion that Martin was the aggressor and not defender, but at least admit that it's a subjective, inferred conclusion and not objectively known to be a fact in any way firmly established by some independent means with solid evidence independent of the claims of the trial's defendant, who some find credible and some don't. It also bears noting that the jury didn't need to determine who was truly the aggressor to acquit. They could acquit based simply on the fact that they couldn't tell what happened beyond any reasonable doubt.
The real point is a case where no honest person can say beyond a reasonable doubt what happened should never have gone to trial.
No, she didn't say it, and you admitted a few days ago she didn't when we had this discussion before. Why are you once again claiming that she said he'd 'made it home'? We already agreed her words established that Martin had reached some location near to the home, with how near and precisely where he was not said or established by what she said. If you're going to now reverse yourself and claim she really said he'd 'made it home' and left again, then please provide a quote of her saying this. It serves little point to go round and round on this particular claim when the witness' words are available for you to cite to prove what you allege. If you can't cite her saying he made it home, then please stop making the claim she said it.
Quote:
"No, she didn't say it, and you admitted a few days ago she didn't when we had this discussion before. "
I said no such thing. You must be confusing me with someone else.
BTW, what is your theory on what TM was doing during those four minutes?
Last edited by Speleothem; 04-03-2015 at 11:32 AM..
So you actually think Zimmie would beat TM in a foot race?
Really? Anyone else honestly believe that?
Who says this was a foot race? Not too many people have that as a concept of what took place.
Zimmerman was sitting in a vehicle when Trayvon ran from the area (so no racing going on there, just one person running and one stationary), and according to Jeantel, Martin was stopped catching his breath and talking on the phone at the point in time Zimmerman, out of sight of Martin, had gotten out of his truck and was heading on foot in Martin's direction (so no racing going on there either, just one person on the move and one stationary).
In fact, witness Jeantel specifically tells how she urged Martin to run when he told her Zimmerman had reappeared in his sight and was approaching him, and Martin allegedly responded to her that he wasn't going to run (again no evidence of racing going on that Zimmerman had to win).
So, when was this "foot race" you mention that required Zimmerman to go head to head with Martin for speed and beat him?
Don't know how many times I have to repeat it. I am discussing factual guilt or lack thereof, not legal guilt or lack thereof. The two are not synonyms, and the two often are different. So, no, I'm not ignoring the state's burden of proof in the courtroom. It's irrelevant to what I'm discussing in my posts. Is there a reason why you don't want to discuss the incident itself and whether there's sufficient reason to believe factual guilt existed despite a court verdict of not guilty?
Factual guilt ? If what ?
OFactually, Z shot and killed TM.
Non-factually, I believe Z followed TM because the aholes --- robbers, burglars, criminals in the neighborhood --- get away too often. TM was both worried and po'd about the guy following him. Rather than using his 4 minutes to avoid the guy, he decided to approach him.
I believe, whoever began the physical confrontation, TM was the much better fighter and had Z on the ground. I believe it was Z yelling for help. He was being beaten, not as he described, but enough for him to reasonably fear great bodily harm. He took out his gun and fired.
You must believe Z is Factually Guilty of something. Of what ? Maybe Z wanted to capture TM, caught up to him, a fight ensued, TM yelled for help, managed to punch Z, Z went down and grazed his head on the grass, pulled his gun and fired.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You must be confusing me with someone else.
